Re: 1.1 Sprints and roadmap

On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 2:41 PM, alex.gay...@gmail.com wrote: > > For any sprint occurring before the 11th I could help arrange > something in Chicago Count me in. But all I'll do is try to harass the local python gurus in to fixing my session-wizard-thing. -Dave

Re: SessionWizard

On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 3:15 PM, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Would have to look at how FormPreview's work, but I agree. > > So far what I've done with the wizard is remove all of the data from > the session as much as possible. It calculates cleaned_data at the > very end and only

Re: SessionWizard

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:34 PM, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So far I've refactored a bunch of the methods to store less in the > session, and generate more on demand (otherwise you could change the > method and then session data represents inaccurate information). I've >

Re: SessionWizard

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 7:50 PM, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So I needed the ability to specify initial data for a wizard, and I > also liked the idea of storing it in the session (vs the POST). I was > pointed to the SessionWizard patch, and I believe this was a 1.1 > possibility

Re: Feature reviews for 1.1

On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Also, I added my votes here: > https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pIaJn09D1vqW1yJjl3wGUeg > (not sure if you're counting non-committer votes or not) You're -1 on SessionWizard is partially invalid. I tried to anticipate the

Re: session backed form wizard

I think I'm pretty much done with what I plan to do with this ticket: http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/9200 Unless anyone else has comments or suggestions that could improve its chances of actually making it into contrib. Thanks, Dave

Re: dealing with legacy tables without primary key

>> > Maybe this tip could be added in the doc; for others sgbd, there must >> > be something similar. >> > And why not put this in the inspectdb command ... >> >> Because it's a dirty, dirty hack. > It is your opinion; what is your solution ? it should interest me, > because this "dirty hack" can

Re: session backed form wizard

On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 9:29 PM, David Durham, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I did find more information here: > > http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/internals/contributing/ > > But this method appears to only run the tests in tests, not the tests > in django

Re: session backed form wizard

> So I'm working on tests for this, and I can see the pattern for > writing tests by looking at django.contrib.formtools.tests.py, but I > don't see what the infrastructure is, if any, for running these tests. > The documentation here doesn't seem to have the info I need > >

Re: session backed form wizard

>> http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/9200 > > I see this pattern a lot, and I guess it will be quite useful - I was > just thinking about writing someting like this class myself. > I have marked the ticked as "Need Docs" and "Need tests", and the status as > DDN. So I'm working on tests for

session backed form wizard

Hi all, I posted a patch for django.contrib.formtools.wizard that adds a SessionWizard class. I'd like to know if there's any interest in apply this or a similar patch, and if so I'll work on tests and documentation. http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/9200 Thanks, Dave

Re: Proposal: django.forms.SafeForm - forms with built in CSRF protection

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 9:00 AM, Simon Willison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sep 24, 2:18 pm, zellyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Would it make sense to have the middleware/view decorator set a >> property on the request, and pass the request to all forms, and have >> *all* forms

Re: Denormalisation, magic, and is it really that useful?

On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This appears to be a proposal to re-implement triggers inside Django. > > I can see there are benefits if the underlying DB platform won't support > triggers, but wouldn't triggers be the preferred solution when they're

Re: FormWizard - GETs on all but last step?

On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Waylan Limberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Um, this is intentional and a good thing. If you read the spec, not > only is the difference between GET and POST defined, but the way user > agents (browsers) should treat them is defined as well. Breaking the > back &

Re: FormWizard - GETs on all but last step?

On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 4:59 PM, David Durham, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > form, and are redirected to a GET for the next step. In this case, > the POST disappears from the user's history (refresh and reload work > as expected). Sorry, reload and back work as expe

Re: FormWizard - GETs on all but last step?

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 8:03 PM, Jeremy Dunck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I was thinking the FormWizard should allow GET to be used on all but > the last step, or should allow configuration of what to method to use. > > Forms aren't just for posting. > > Any interest in this? Nice thing about